What would be the Antithesis of the Great GCA Triumvirate's Golf Course Designs

[V_Halyard]

Dear GCA,

The Current Great GCA Triumvirate - Coore + Crenshaw, Doak and Hanse Golf Course Designs over the last quarter of a century has been a big influence/huge trendsetters on many golf course designs and approaches especially on GCA.

Design styles evolves over time as you have seen in the past. I have been very fortunate to work in both Architecture (buildings) and Golf Course Architecture and the evolution of both are similar and opposite at times. In GCA for me there is quite a lack of the opposite of a popular design trend compared with buildings, products and cars etc where there is more variety in design styles.

My question what would you interpret as the Antithesis of the Great GCA Triumvirate's designs?

Cheers
Ben

The premise needs some economic context as gca is a commercial endeavor. These projects are not pop up art galleries in SoHo or Santa Monica.
Most clients retain these GCA’s with expectation of the delivery of design styles that the lead the pack and marketplace. These clients are not seeking splattered paint all over a Topo map masquerading as evolution.   
Many artists evolve subtly, others, like one of my former bosses, the late musician Prince thrived on creative disruption.

The “triumvirate” have evolved and experimented in their tenure. Your premise that they ‘have not’ seems to be searching  for an unrealistic level of seismic disruption. That is not a prerequisite of evolution, especially in a successful business.

Contemporary GCA clients of today are not retaining “the triumvirate” for millions of  dollars to deliver pop up golf art. It is a production driven marketplace and clients hire the leading producers to deliver hits.

[Tim_Weiman]

Ben

The building architecture examples isn't giving me a sense of what you mean for golf architecture.

Ciao

If you seen the roof forms of Eisenman's proposal - that could be recreated in big and bold landforms and you thread holes through the lower parts or over them.

I would conclude that Building Architecture is far more advanced and has much greater variety when it comes to design styles than golf course design which seems to be rather monotonous at present ie everyone doing similar work not one out of the box

My guess is you don’t really know what is the opposite of what is being built now. The building architecture references don’t help me understand where you are going with this thread.

I believe we have a wider variety of architecture now than has probably ever existed. All sorts of stuff from true minimalism to complete build from scratch to geometric to naturalism to flat to mountain to desert to reversible to short yardage to long yardage etc etc is happening. I guess you are difficult to satisfy.

To be honest, there is so much happening right now that I can’t even keep up let alone try to play most of these courses.

If you are talking about a trend to take over, again, I don’t think I want a new trend. What is happening now is awesome and extremely varied. I have no desire to see the current trend end because I don’t know what will come next and what we have is outstanding. I played a reversible 9 hole course which can also be played in multiple ways in terms of jumping around. Short grass everywhere. Seriously small property. Built from nothing. I am not too worried about bunker styles. 😎.

Ciao

Sean,


I agree. The building references don’t do anything for me.


Tim

[Ben Sims]

One thing this thread seems to gloss over—as does Zach Car in his post punk opinion piece and in the preview of Old Petty—is that a lot of what some are calling the “antithesis” of the triumvirate is being built by the same people that worked for and in many cases DID the work for the triumvirate.


It absolutely cheapens what Renaissance and C+C have done when you don’t fully appreciate their flexibility. Great teams can win using any phase of the game. 

[Ira Fishman]

I do not buy the premise that Hanse should be lumped together with C&C and Doak in terms of design approach/ethos. My sample size is small but neither PH4 or SS Black are minimalist. Castle Stuart is faux links which I do not see the other architects embracing as an approach although I know that it was the brief given to Hanse. In terms of the SS courses that represent all of the Triumvirate, Black is very different from Red and Blue


Perhaps I am biased because I have a higher regard for the C&C and Doak courses I have played. The Big 3 or the Great Triumvirate might be a catchy categorization, but it is not an accurate one.

[Ira Fishman]

Dear GCA,

The Current Great GCA Triumvirate - Coore + Crenshaw, Doak and Hanse Golf Course Designs over the last quarter of a century has been a big influence/huge trendsetters on many golf course designs and approaches especially on GCA.

Design styles evolves over time as you have seen in the past. I have been very fortunate to work in both Architecture (buildings) and Golf Course Architecture and the evolution of both are similar and opposite at times. In GCA for me there is quite a lack of the opposite of a popular design trend compared with buildings, products and cars etc where there is more variety in design styles.

My question what would you interpret as the Antithesis of the Great GCA Triumvirate's designs?

Cheers
Ben

The premise needs some economic context as gca is a commercial endeavor. These projects are not pop up art galleries in SoHo or Santa Monica.
Most clients retain these GCA’s with expectation of the delivery of design styles that the lead the pack and marketplace. These clients are not seeking splattered paint all over a Topo map masquerading as evolution.   
Many artists evolve subtly, others, like one of my former bosses, the late musician Prince thrived on creative disruption.

The “triumvirate” have evolved and experimented in their tenure. Your premise that they ‘have not’ seems to be searching  for an unrealistic level of seismic disruption. That is not a prerequisite of evolution, especially in a successful business.

Contemporary GCA clients of today are not retaining “the triumvirate” for millions of  dollars to deliver pop up golf art. It is a production driven marketplace and clients hire the leading producers to deliver hits.

Spot on. Let’s not lose sight that the “prevailing” trend is barely 30 years old and was driven by the economic success of Sand Hills, Bandon, etc. King and Collins seem to be having a good run with a different design ethos. If those projects are successful, you are likely to see more developers adopting that approach.

[Craig Sweet]

The floating green in Idaho does move in relation to lake elevation.

[Tom_Doak]

I do not buy the premise that Hanse should be lumped together with C&C and Doak in terms of design approach/ethos. My sample size is small but neither PH4 or SS Black are minimalist. Castle Stuart is faux links which I do not see the other architects embracing as an approach although I know that it was the brief given to Hanse. In terms of the SS courses that represent all of the Triumvirate, Black is very different from Red and Blue

Perhaps I am biased because I have a higher regard for the C&C and Doak courses I have played. The Big 3 or the Great Triumvirate might be a catchy categorization, but it is not an accurate one.

It is the nature of the press that there always has to be a "Big 3" for some reason.  I have always wondered whether it's because less than three would be playing favorites, or because it gives them all a chance to nominate their own candidate for the third position.

[zachary_car]

One thing this thread seems to gloss over—as does Zach Car in his post punk opinion piece and in the preview of Old Petty—is that a lot of what some are calling the “antithesis” of the triumvirate is being built by the same people that worked for and in many cases DID the work for the triumvirate.


It absolutely cheapens what Renaissance and C+C have done when you don’t fully appreciate their flexibility. Great teams can win using any phase of the game.

Well, I guess I should first officially apologize for the cheap swipe in that piece....little did I know what was coming down the pipeline. But we did communicate after, and I do look forward to seeing if Barnwell proves me wrong. At the end of the day, I am a nobody writer from Ottawa, Canada who never had a single connection in golf; if I never said anything, who would've ever taken notice of my stuff.....


The sport analogy is interesting here, and one I'll adopt. Why is it that so many elite coordinators (Robert Saleh, being the most recent one) can't become successful head coaches? It's far different skill set being the person in charge, the editor so to speak, from being the second or third in command. You also need to hire your own crew, in turn (Nathaniel Hackett as his OC). Are the their own crews as skillfull as the ones on which they worked as the second or third in command? Maybe yes, maybe no. This happens in every profession, even in everyday life. Successful workers can't become successful managers. 


I also think that, considering just how many talented people are chomping at the bit for their shot, nevermind the already established ones, there is alot of pressure to deliver right away. As such, alot of the new golf courses just seem to be trying way too hard, throwing the kitchen sink at it. The reality is that young architects likely don't have three or four new projects to work on and perfect their craft through trial and error anymore.

[Tom_Doak]

The sport analogy is interesting here, and one I'll adopt. Why is it that so many elite coordinators (Robert Saleh, being the most recent one) can't become successful head coaches? It's far different skill set being the person in charge, the editor so to speak, from being the second or third in command. You also need to hire your own crew, in turn (Nathaniel Hackett as his OC). Are the their own crews as skillfull as the ones on which they worked as the second or third in command? Maybe yes, maybe no. This happens in every profession, even in everyday life. Successful workers can't become successful managers. 

I also think that, considering just how many talented people are chomping at the bit for their shot, nevermind the already established ones, there is alot of pressure to deliver right away. As such, alot of the new golf courses just seem to be trying way too hard, throwing the kitchen sink at it. The reality is that young architects likely don't have three or four new projects to work on and perfect their craft through trial and error anymore.

Successful workers CAN become successful managers.  They may not want to, but as Steve Jobs once said, they do it when they realize they have to do it, in order to move the project forward to where they want.  On my own team, Eric Iverson is certainly one of those guys who has taught others in order to move the overall company forward . . . and he also taught some of the guys who work for Bill Coore now.


But you are right about the pressure [self-imposed or Instagram-imposed] to be an IMMEDIATE success.  In the pre-Internet era, it took me a dozen courses of trial and error to build my team and build some good courses and some so-so courses, to be ready for my shot at the big time.  Getting good at something requires a lot of reps in practice.  Brian Schneider has gotten a lot of practice at design and shaping while working on my projects, but running the show is something you can't really practice until you are doing it yourself.

[Ben Sims]

One thing this thread seems to gloss over—as does Zach Car in his post punk opinion piece and in the preview of Old Petty—is that a lot of what some are calling the “antithesis” of the triumvirate is being built by the same people that worked for and in many cases DID the work for the triumvirate.


It absolutely cheapens what Renaissance and C+C have done when you don’t fully appreciate their flexibility. Great teams can win using any phase of the game.

Well, I guess I should first officially apologize for the cheap swipe in that piece....little did I know what was coming down the pipeline. But we did communicate after, and I do look forward to seeing if Barnwell proves me wrong. At the end of the day, I am a nobody writer from Ottawa, Canada who never had a single connection in golf; if I never said anything, who would've ever taken notice of my stuff.....


The sport analogy is interesting here, and one I'll adopt. Why is it that so many elite coordinators (Robert Saleh, being the most recent one) can't become successful head coaches? It's far different skill set being the person in charge, the editor so to speak, from being the second or third in command. You also need to hire your own crew, in turn (Nathaniel Hackett as his OC). Are the their own crews as skillfull as the ones on which they worked as the second or third in command? Maybe yes, maybe no. This happens in every profession, even in everyday life. Successful workers can't become successful managers. 


I also think that, considering just how many talented people are chomping at the bit for their shot, nevermind the already established ones, there is alot of pressure to deliver right away. As such, alot of the new golf courses just seem to be trying way too hard, throwing the kitchen sink at it. The reality is that young architects likely don't have three or four new projects to work on and perfect their craft through trial and error anymore.

Zach (do you prefer Zachary? Sorry if so),


I suppose I should stop beating this horse. I’ve been pretty deferential to associates and interns for a long time. I’m no dummy. Kirby Smart is who delivered my Dawgs to the promised land and not specifically Dan Lanning or Todd Monken. The program starts with Kirby just as Renaissance starts with Tom. Like him—I always feel the need to remind everyone that it’s a team effort and talent has to come from all contributors not just the top.


But yeah, sorry if it looked like I was taking a swipe over that topic again.


I don’t like the premise of this thread. It seems to fail a basic test of knowledge about what’s actually happening in the golf architecture world. Ethos and aesthetic are being conflated in an unhelpful way. Bottom line, there’s A LOT of projects that are new and open or about to be open. There’s talent to be deployed and that talent doesn’t always have to build what they used to for Tom or Bill. Being antithetical for the sake of being antithetical seems a way to fail miserably at being a golf architect. Good golf is good golf no matter what it looks like.

[zachary_car]

The sport analogy is interesting here, and one I'll adopt. Why is it that so many elite coordinators (Robert Saleh, being the most recent one) can't become successful head coaches? It's far different skill set being the person in charge, the editor so to speak, from being the second or third in command. You also need to hire your own crew, in turn (Nathaniel Hackett as his OC). Are the their own crews as skillfull as the ones on which they worked as the second or third in command? Maybe yes, maybe no. This happens in every profession, even in everyday life. Successful workers can't become successful managers. 

I also think that, considering just how many talented people are chomping at the bit for their shot, nevermind the already established ones, there is alot of pressure to deliver right away. As such, alot of the new golf courses just seem to be trying way too hard, throwing the kitchen sink at it. The reality is that young architects likely don't have three or four new projects to work on and perfect their craft through trial and error anymore.

Successful workers CAN become successful managers.  They may not want to, but as Steve Jobs once said, they do it when they realize they have to do it, in order to move the project forward to where they want.  On my own team, Eric Iverson is certainly one of those guys who has taught others in order to move the overall company forward . . . and he also taught some of the guys who work for Bill Coore now.


But you are right about the pressure [self-imposed or Instagram-imposed] to be an IMMEDIATE success.  In the pre-Internet era, it took me a dozen courses of trial and error to build my team and build some good courses and some so-so courses, to be ready for my shot at the big time.  Getting good at something requires a lot of reps in practice.  Brian Schneider has gotten a lot of practice at design and shaping while working on my projects, but running the show is something you can't really practice until you are doing it yourself.

Yes, I should’ve mentioned more clearly that it is possible to be become a successful boss or head coach. But it’s difficult. And sometimes it’s the ones no one expects, like Dan Campbell!

[zachary_car]

One thing this thread seems to gloss over—as does Zach Car in his post punk opinion piece and in the preview of Old Petty—is that a lot of what some are calling the “antithesis” of the triumvirate is being built by the same people that worked for and in many cases DID the work for the triumvirate.


It absolutely cheapens what Renaissance and C+C have done when you don’t fully appreciate their flexibility. Great teams can win using any phase of the game.

Well, I guess I should first officially apologize for the cheap swipe in that piece....little did I know what was coming down the pipeline. But we did communicate after, and I do look forward to seeing if Barnwell proves me wrong. At the end of the day, I am a nobody writer from Ottawa, Canada who never had a single connection in golf; if I never said anything, who would've ever taken notice of my stuff.....


The sport analogy is interesting here, and one I'll adopt. Why is it that so many elite coordinators (Robert Saleh, being the most recent one) can't become successful head coaches? It's far different skill set being the person in charge, the editor so to speak, from being the second or third in command. You also need to hire your own crew, in turn (Nathaniel Hackett as his OC). Are the their own crews as skillfull as the ones on which they worked as the second or third in command? Maybe yes, maybe no. This happens in every profession, even in everyday life. Successful workers can't become successful managers. 


I also think that, considering just how many talented people are chomping at the bit for their shot, nevermind the already established ones, there is alot of pressure to deliver right away. As such, alot of the new golf courses just seem to be trying way too hard, throwing the kitchen sink at it. The reality is that young architects likely don't have three or four new projects to work on and perfect their craft through trial and error anymore.

Zach (do you prefer Zachary? Sorry if so),


I suppose I should stop beating this horse. I’ve been pretty deferential to associates and interns for a long time. I’m no dummy. Kirby Smart is who delivered my Dawgs to the promised land and not specifically Dan Lanning or Todd Monken. The program starts with Kirby just as Renaissance starts with Tom. Like him—I always feel the need to remind everyone that it’s a team effort and talent has to come from all contributors not just the top.


But yeah, sorry if it looked like I was taking a swipe over that topic again.


I don’t like the premise of this thread. It seems to fail a basic test of knowledge about what’s actually happening in the golf architecture world. Ethos and aesthetic are being conflated in an unhelpful way. Bottom line, there’s A LOT of projects that are new and open or about to be open. There’s talent to be deployed and that talent doesn’t always have to build what they used to for Tom or Bill. Being antithetical for the sake of being antithetical seems a way to fail miserably at being a golf architect. Good golf is good golf no matter what it looks like.

Zach or Zachary. Whatever. Been called worse!


It’s no problem at all. Like I said before, If you write things that everyone agrees with, then you probably didn’t write anything worthwhile!


Maybe in time I’ll be proven wrong. In fact, I hope I am because it’ll be better for all of us